DOCSLIB.ORG

Martin Hinterberger: How Should We Define Vernacular Literature

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Martin Hinterberger: How Should We Define Vernacular Literature Paper given at the conference “Unlocking the Potential of Texts: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Medieval Greek” at the Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences, and Humanities, University of Cambridge, 18-19 July 2006. Please quote with the URL http://www.mml.cam.ac.uk/greek/grammarofmedievalgreek/unlocking/Hinterberger.pdf” and the date you have last accessed the file. © 2006, Martin Hinterberger Martin HINTERBERGER University of Cyprus How should we define vernacular literature?* Originally I was given the task of clarifying the distinction between vernacular and learned literature. I have no definitive answer to the question “How should we define vernacular literature?” Instead I can only offer some remarks which I hope will be helpful. Afterwards, I shall present to you certain texts and then consider whether they belong to the category of vernacular literature or not. I shall focus on the period prior to 1500, in other words, up to the end of the Byzantine era. In the following, therefore, I will treat vernacular literature as part of Byzantine Literature. To begin with, allow me first to briefly present the linguistic situation in the Greek- speaking world during the Middle Ages (cf. BROWNING 1983, HORROCKS 1997) and touch on certain problems of terminology. Since Antiquity the Byzantines had inherited the usage of classicizing Greek for a wide range of literary genres. In particular, for all kinds of rhetorical texts ancient and late antique authors served as models. Higher education aimed at providing a thorough familiarity with these models, firstly in order to understand them and secondly in order to compose texts by imitating the models. Since the range of recommended patterns extends from Homer to George of Pisidia (i.e. texts from the 8th c. B.C. to the 7th c. A.D.) and since authors were inevitably influenced, to a greater or lesser degree, by their everyday language, in most cases the textual product was a peculiar mixture with a specific Byzantine character, which however – and this has to *I am indebted to John Davis and Maria Parani for improving my English. be stressed – does not mean chaotic or arbitrary. The majority of less literary types of text however (such as theological treatises, hagiography, popular narratives) were composed in a less pretentious idiom, though also quite different from the spoken language, somewhat comparable to the late antique koine and hence termed “Schriftkoine”. Both classicizing Greek and the literary koine had to be learned in school. Simple forms of this Byzantine koine made considerable concessions to everyday language, but only from the 12th c. on, was an idiom close to the spoken language used for the composition of literary texts. The latter category of texts, written in a language fairly close to the spoken, we usually refer to as vernacular literature, whereas all other texts are called learned. Despite certain parallels, the language situation was not comparable with the phenomenon of modern Greek diglossia. Atticizing Greek was never the official language of the state. Its usage was restricted to specific types of literature. Members of the imperial court functioned as patrons of this kind of literature, but official documents were drafted in the Byzantine koine, while in the case of diplomatic contacts with foreigners an idiom verging on the vernacular was used. Because the so-called learned language apparently does not differ much from ancient Greek, except that it is supposedly of much lower quality, in general scholars of Byzantine literature have not bothered much about it. On the other hand, both historical linguists and scholars of Modern Greek literature, for different reasons of course, have shown considerable interest in the vernacular language. Nevertheless, scholars of the vernacular literature tend to assess the language of their texts from a very distant point of view, namely Modern Greek. Thus, they too frequently come to the conclusion that the language of the texts they are dealing with is underdeveloped and deficient. Let’s turn briefly to terminology, especially to the English terms “vernacular” and “popular” and corresponding terms in other languages. The tripartite differentiation of Byzantine literature as set out in the handbooks (BECK 1959 and 1971, HUNGER 1978) still has a huge influence on the field. According to this scheme we divide Byzantine literary production into learned (secular or theological) and popular literature. Content or topic is the guiding criterion of this - 2- differentiation. Language functions as a secondary criterion. The first two categories of text are written in an archaising language, while popular literature is written in the vernacular. This categorization aimed primarily at a convenient subdivision of the field. This practical rationale had the side-effect of drawing strict boundaries between the subdivisions, which did not exist in Byzantium. One major point of criticism against the division into three sub-fields is that since there exist a considerable number of cases where a single author produces secular and theological and/or popular literature employing various linguistic and stylistic registers, i.e. learned and vernacular, the separation into three different categories of literature only serves to fragment the conceptual unity of the author’s literary work (TRAPP 1993a and 1993b, 95; HINTERBERGER 2002b; cf. also KAZHDAN 1978). Furthermore, the two criteria mentioned above, content and form of language, are not always compatible; indeed they are sometimes contradictory. Among the texts gathered by BECK (1971) under the label “popular literature” (Volksliteratur, δημώδης λογοτεχνία) we find not only texts written in the vernacular, but also texts in the learned language (Aesop, Barlaam & Ioasaph, Stephanites & Ichnelates etc.). These texts were incorporated into Beck’s handbook on the grounds that they both fit the idea of popular narrative and circulated in a great number of manuscripts. In post-Byzantine times they found a broad public in a modernized linguistic form. For this reason, when we discuss our topic using German or Modern Greek, we have in mind a category of texts which does not consist exclusively of texts written in the vernacular, whereas when we use the English term “vernacular literature” we mean a corpus comprised exclusively of texts composed in the vernacular. On the other hand, the terms Volksliteratur, popular literature1 or δημώδης λογοτεχνία, suggest that the texts labelled as such have something to do with the common people. Since BECK (1971), though, it has been clear that the beginnings of literature in the vernacular have nothing to do with the “people”. The first authors known to us, who to some extent used the vernacular (Theodoros Prodromos, Michael Glykas), were highly distinguished literati of their times, connected to the imperial court. Among the authors of the famous love-romances, there is a Byzantine prince (Kallimachos) and probably even an emperor (Libistros). This means that both authors 1 “Popular literature” however is less common in English; there is for instance no entry in KAZHDAN et al. 1991; it is used though by HOLTON 1974. - 3- and recipients of these texts belonged to the learned elite, which had little to do with the people, so that the term popular literature for this kind of text is misleading, to say the least.2 Let me now give two examples illustrating the arbitrary character of the criterion issue. In the Libistros-romance we find the beautiful description of a painting presenting the 12 allegorical figures of the Months of the Year (LAMBERT 1935, 116, 1017ff). This seems to be a genuinely popular motif in the otherwise rather courtly romance. Probably not many years after the original composition of the work, Manuel Philes, court-poet of Andronikos I and III, wrote a poem on the same topic in the learned language (MILLER 1855, I 341-342). Both texts look back at a long tradition of similar presentations of the 12 Months, probably going back to Late Antiquity. The satirical Ptochoprodromic poems (ed. EIDENEIER 1991) are supposed to express also some kind of social critique. It has been claimed that this social consciousness is connected to the form of language. But what we read in Ptochoprodromos III in the vernacular reminds us also of Theodoros Prodromos Hist. Ged. 38 written in Homeric language, and the content of the vernacular poem edited by MAJURI (1920) contains references to the learned poem 71 addressed to Theodore Stypeiotes (see HÖRANDNER 1974, esp. 66). Theodore Prodromos simply displays his ability as a poet by using different stylistic registers, as he is obviously proud of his ability to employ different metres.3 So much for the connection between subject and language form. Beck himself was aware of the fact that the term “popular literature” (Volksliteratur) may be connected with the romantic-nationalistic idea of the people as creator of literature and expressed his reservations in the introduction to his handbook (BECK 1971). From the viewpoint of Modern Greek literature, the term popular literature (δημώδης λογοτεχνία) is ideologically fraught. Yet while in the field of Modern Greek Literature new approaches have been undertaken, the views expressed in handbooks such as the History of Modern Greek Literature by Linos POLITES (1975) are still prevalent. According to this viewpoint the beginning of Modern Greek Literature is intrinsically associated with the combination of the language of 2 CUPANE 2003 provides a thorough discussion of the issue. In order to solve the problem, she uses the somewhat outdated term “vulgärsprachliche Literatur” (probably under the influence of greco volgare or grecque vulgaire). 3 For details of the thorny “Ptochoprodromic question” see EIDENEIER 1991 and especially EIDENEIER forthcoming). - 4- the people and the expression of a Modern Greek ethnic consciousness, both of which are supposedly first found in the narrative of Digenes Akrites. Just one further remark: in the rest of my talk I will use the term “vernacular” to refer to a linguistic form in literary texts, whereas by “demotic” I generally mean the written form of the spoken language.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reviving the Pagan Greek Novel in a Christian World Burton, Joan B Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1998; 39, 2; Proquest Pg
    Reviving the Pagan Greek novel in a Christian World Burton, Joan B Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1998; 39, 2; ProQuest pg. 179 Reviving the Pagan Greek Novel in a Christian World Joan B. Burton N THE CHRISTIAN WORLD of Constantinople, in the twelfth century A.D., there was a revival of the ancient Greek novel, I replete with pagan gods and pagan themes. The aim of this paper is to draw attention to the crucial role of Christian themes such as the eucharist and the resurrection in the shaping and recreation of the ancient pagan Greek world in the Byzan­ tine Greek novels. Traditionally scholars have focused on similarities to the ancient Greek novels in basic plot elements, narrative tech­ niques, and the like. This has often resulted in a general dismissal of the twelfth-century Greek novels as imitative and unoriginal.1 Yet a revision of this judgment has begun to take place.2 Scholars have noted that there are themes and imagery in these novels that would sound contemporary to many of their Byzantine readers, for example, ceremonial throne scenes and 1 Thus B. E. Perry, The Ancient Romances: A Literary-Historical Account of Their Origins (Berkeley 1967) 103: "the slavish imitations of Achilles Tatius and Heliodorus which were written in the twelfth century by such miserable pedants as Eustathius Macrembolites, Theodorus Prodromus, and Nicetas Eugenianus, trying to write romance in what they thought was the ancient manner. Of these no account need be taken." 2See R. Beaton's important book, The Medieval Greek Romance 2 (London 1996) 52-88, 210-214; M.
    [Show full text]
  • Bourbouhakis Curriculum Vitae
    Curriculum Vitae Emmanuel C. Bourbouhakis Assistant Professor Department of Classics Princeton University 141 East Pyne Princeton, NJ 08544 Tel: 609-258-3951 Email: [email protected] Current Position 2011- Assistant Professor, Department of Classics, Princeton University Previous Employment 2008-2010 DFG Teaching–Research Fellow, Department of History, Albert-Ludwigs Universität Freiburg 2007-2008 Lecturer, Department of the Classics, Harvard University Education 09/1999-10/2006 PhD in Classical and Byzantine Philology, Harvard University 09/1997-06/1999 MA in Classical Philology, University of Western Ontario 09/1989-06/1993 BA in History, McGill University; Liberal Arts College, Concordia University Ancient Languages Latin, Greek (classical & medieval) Modern Languages Greek (modern), English, French, German, Italian Awards, Honours, Fellowships 2010 Gerda Henkel Stiftung Fellowship 2008 Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Forschungsstipendium (German National Research Foundation Fellowship) at the Albert-Ludwigs Universität Freiburg 2005 Harvard University Humanities Dissertation Fellowship 2004 Dumbarton Oaks Junior Fellowship 2003 DAAD Doctoral Fellowship at the Byzantinisch-Neugriechisches Institut, Freie Universität Berlin 2 2002 Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Doctoral Grant Academic Service Princeton University 2011-2012 Search Committee, Byzantine Art and Archaeology 2012-2013 Forbes College Academic Advisor 2012-2013 Department of Classics Seniors Adviser 2012-2013 Department of Classics Undergraduate
    [Show full text]
  • Conference Booklet
    O nd O X F O R D U 22 C E N T R E f o r B Y Z A N T I N E B International R E S E A R C H G r a d u a t e Oxford Centre for S C o n f e re n c e Late Antiquity H I S T O R Y FACULTY The State Between OXFORD Liminality, Transition 2 8 - 2 9 & Transformation FEBRUARY 2 0 2 0 in Late Antiquity & Byzantium The Oxford University Byzantine Society’s XXII International Graduate Conference The State Between: Liminality, Transition and Transformation in Late Antiquity and Byzantium 28th -29th February 2020 History Faculty, Oxford Was conceived and organised by Daniel Gallaher (President) Lorenzo Saccon (Secretary) Josh Hitt (Treasurer) In collaboration with Aikaterini Vavaliou And made possible through the generous support of The Oxford Centre for Byzantine Research (OCBR) www.ocbr.ox.ac.uk The Oxford Centre for Late Antiquity (OCLA) www.ocla.ox.ac.uk Oxford Medieval Studies (OMS) https://www.torch.ox.ac.uk/oxford-medieval-studies The Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) https://ahrc.ukri.org/ The Oxford Research Centre for Humanities (TORCH) www.torch.ox.ac.uk History Faculty, Oxford www.history.ox.ac.uk/home With thanks to the organising committee Cover Image Credit: Chloé Agar Cory Johnson Alberto Ravani Background Photo: Mosaic of Theodora - Basilica of San Vitale (Ravenna, Italy) Philip Atkins John-Francis Martin Sofia Simões Coelho © Petar Milošević / CC BY-SA James Cogbill Callan Meynell Rebekah Wahnon-Pym Graphic Design: Aikaterini Vavaliou for the OUBS Miranda Gronow Raymond Ngoh Julian Wood 2 3 Welcome The conference committee wishes you all a very warm welcome to the Oxford University Byzantine Society’s 22nd International Graduate Conference.
    [Show full text]
  • Discovering Isaac Komnenos and the Letter of Aristeas
    READING BETWEEN THE LINES OF A BYZANTINE ‘PARAPHRASE’: (RE)DISCOVERING ISAAC KOMNENOS AND THE LETTER OF ARISTEAS Valeria Flavia Lovato Introduction: the illustrated Octateuchs and Isaac Komnenos In a recent study on the illuminated Octateuchs, Lowden has defined this group of luxurious manuscripts as a typically ‘Byzantine phenomenon’.1 The present paper focuses on one such manuscript, namely the Seraglio Octateuch, generally attributed to the patronage of the sebastokratōr Isaac Komnenos Porphyrogen- netos, son of emperor Alexios I and brother of John II.2 More specifically, in what follows I will focus on the so-called paraphrase of the Letter of Aristeas,3 a unique feature of the Seraglio manuscript. This short text, meant as a sort of introduction to the whole codex, was most likely penned by Isaac Komnenos himself.4 The This article is part of a project funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (PostDoc. Mobility Grant number P400PH_180700). I would like to thank Tommaso Braccini and Aglae Pizzone for their comments on previous drafts. Special thanks are owed to Nancy Patterson Ševčenko and Michiel Op de Coul for allowing me to read their unpublished work. 1 J. Lowden, Illustrated Octateuch Manuscripts: A Byzantine Phenomenon, in: P. Mag- dalino – R. S. Nelson (eds), The Old Testament in Byzantium. Washington D.C. 2010, 107-152. 2 On Isaac Komnenos as the most likely commissioner of the Seraglio Octateuch see, most recently, K. Linardou, Imperial Impersonations: Disguised Portraits of a Komnenian Prince and his Father, in: A. Bucossi – A. Rodriguez Suarez (eds), John II Komnenos, Emperor of Byzantium. In the Shadow of Father and Son.
    [Show full text]
  • Abduction and Elopement in the Byzantine Novel Joan B
    Abduction and Elopement in the Byzantine Novel Joan B. Burton N THE ANCIENT GREEK NOVELS only rogue suitors or villains perform violent, non-consensual abductions, never the hero. In Theodore Prodromos’s twelfth-century Greek novel, by Icontrast, the hero abducts the heroine with the help of armed accomplices and without her prior knowledge or consent. In a manner unprecedented in the Greek novel, an act of violent non- consensual abduction, characteristic of a villain, belongs to the romantic hero. Although recent scholars have drawn attention to the abduc- tion theme in the twelfth-century novels,1 Prodromos’s remark- able innovation of a non-consensual abduction of the heroine by 2 the hero seems to have escaped notice. This paper looks at 1 See R. Beaton’s fundamental book, The Medieval Greek Romance 2 (London 1996) 63–64; also his “Epic and Romance in the Twelfth Century,” in A. R. Littlewood, ed., Originality in Byzantine Literature, Art and Music (Oxford 1995) 87. See also A. E. Laiou’s important article, “Sex, Consent, and Coercion in Byzantium,” in A. E. Laiou, ed., Consent and Coercion to Sex and Marriage in Ancient and Medieval Societies (Washington 1993: hereafter LAIOU) esp. 200, 211–213, 218. 2 The operating assumption by scholars seems to have been that in the twelfth-century novels all abductions of heroines by heroes were consensual. Yet Beaton’s perhaps seminal misclassification of Prodromos’s hero’s abduc- tion of the heroine as a consensual act seems based on a misremembrance of the plot. Prodromos’s hero, with a group of huntsmen, abducts the heroine from the bathing-place to which she has been led (2.400–454); he does not ride “up to her bedroom window with twenty henchmen”; she does not go “willingly,” hav- ing “already exchanged words with him from her upstairs window” (Beaton, “Epic” [supra n.1] 87).
    [Show full text]
  • Byzantine Empire (Ca 600-1200): I.1
    INSTITUTE OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH ΙΝΣΤΙΤΟΥΤΟ ΙΣΤΟΡΙΚΩΝ ΕΡΕΥΝΩΝ SECTION OF BYZANTINE RESEARCH ΤΟΜΕΑΣ ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΝΩΝ ΕΡΕΥΝΩΝ NATIONAL HELLENIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION ΕΘΝΙΚΟ IΔΡΥΜΑ ΕΡΕΥΝΩΝ Τομοσ 30 VOLUME EFI RAGIA THE GEOGRAPHY OF THE PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION Przemysław marciniak OF THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE (CA 600-1200): I.1. THE APOTHEKAI OF ASIA MINOR (7TH-8TH C.) OF FALSE PHILOSOPHERS AND INEPT TEACHERS: Theodore Prodromos’ saTirical wriTings ΑΘΗΝΑ • 20092020 • ATHENS Przemysław marciniak Of false PhilOsOPhers and inePt teachers: theOdOre PrOdrOmOs’ satirical writings (with a translation of the poem Against the old man with a long beard)* Theodore Prodromos, an ingenious 12th century writer, has been referred to as “the Byzantine Lucian”1. However, this compliment only partially reflects Prodromos’ literary activities, as he authored far more than merely satires, which were only a fraction of his oeuvre2. Some of his works were created in connection with his educational undertakings, and this could come in the form of literary exercises for his students (e.g. the Κατομυομαχία, Βίων πρᾶσις [Sale of Lives], schede)3 or texts meant to advertise and perhaps even defend Prodromos’ teaching methods (e.g. the Ἀμαθής, Φιλοπλάτων). The poem Κατὰ μακρογενείου γέροντος (Against the old man with a long beard, * This text has been written as part of the National Center for Science Project UMO – 2013 /10/E/ HS 2/00170. I am deeply grateful to anonymous reviewers for their remarks and corrections. 1. A. kaldellis, Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition, Cambridge 2008, 251 and 258. 2. A full list of Prodromos’ works can be found in w.
    [Show full text]
  • Theodore Prodromos Carm. Hist. 6.46 Christos Simelidis
    Honouring the Bridegroom like God: Theodore Prodromos Carm. Hist. 6.46 Christos Simelidis N THIS PAPER I examine the phrase , used by Theodore Prodromos (ca. 1100–1170) in the con- I text of nuptial praise; it is suggested that the idea of a bridegroom honoured like God may be indebted to Sappho, and that the phrase is not simply taken over from Gregory of Nazianzos but is almost certainly the result of a misunderstanding or misreading of his texyte bÚyn T…hw egoderor°yeo.u Tsinhe paper considers Theodore’s knowledge of Gregory’s poetry, as well as his striking comments about the “pillage” of Gregory’s words of praise by later poets and hymnographers. It is further argued that Gregorye Úhni m…ws eglfe ri°sy ovuesryin likely to have been in- fluenced in this particular case by Euphorion and Homer, and a striking example is adduced of Gregory’s inspired use of al- lusion, which has never been explored in detail. At Carm.hist. 6 Theodore Prodromos narrates the triumphal entry of John II Komnenos into Kastamon, Paphlagonia. John fought against the Danişmendids, a Turkoman dynasty which had occupied this territory before 1101, and restored Byzantine rule after the death of Emir Ghāzī, eldest son of Danişmend, in 1134. At one point Prodromos describes the delight of the citizens who gather to greet the emperor, using the following simile (40–49):1 ’ 40 45 1… wEdd. ˜Wte. koHuörraidn¤dhneérr, tT¤ghaeomdorwos e‰Pdrodwroémros¤,s tHhistorische Gedichte (Wien. Bypzanst.tSãtusdi. n1u1m [fVidien¤onias 1in97§4n])°. zetai aÈtår éko¤thn m¤mnei ˜ w ofl lex°vn én tiãsoi: …, w d¢ se lÆnh xruse¤,o is i p °ploisi fae¤netai ˆm ma ta d én dr«n Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 46 (2006) 87–100 pãnta peritropãdhn §pisÊreta, i ofl d° m in' afi¢n © 2006 GRBS efisorÒ vntew êlaston §n‹ fres‹ y, ãm bow ¶x ousi 88 HONOURING THE BRIDEGROOM LIKE GOD , , ’ , ’ .
    [Show full text]
  • From Huns Into Persians: the Projected Identity of the Turks in the Byzantine Rhetoric of Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries
    From Huns into Persians: The Projected Identity of the Turks in the Byzantine Rhetoric of Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries By Roman Shliakhtin Supervisor: Daniel Ziemann, Niels Gaul Submitted to the Medieval Studies Department Central European University, Budapest In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Medieval Studies CEU eTD Collection Budapest 2016 1 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisor professor Niels Gaul who fostered my talents and supported me. His care and trust helped me to overcome many obstacles I met on the way and stimulated me to challenge my own limits and systematize my results. I express gratitude to my supervisor Daniel Ziemann and to the pre-defense committee members Volker Menze and Tijana Krstic. I also thank my first teacher Rustam Shukurov who encouraged me to start the project in 2007 and keeps supporting me with his friendship and advice up to the present day. I thank my colleagues and friends Mariana Bodnaruk, Marijana Vukovic, Andras Kraft and Divna Manolova who read parts of this dissertation at the later stage. I express my gratitude to my mentor and the former head of the Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Studies Program, professor Michael Maas who commented on the methodology of the project. I also thank Head of the PhD Program Alice Choyke and PhD Coordinator Csilla Dobos for their patience and help. I express my appreciation to the following specialists for sharing their expertise and providing feedback on my project: Mary Cunningham, Leslie Brubaker, Michael Jeffreys, Elizabeth Jeffreys, Michael Angold, Mark Whittow, Ingella Nilsson, Ruth Macrides and Paul Magdalino.
    [Show full text]
  • Youths in Komnenian Literature
    GRAECO-LATINA BRUNENSIA 20, 2015, 1 HANA COUFALOVÁ (MASARYK UNIVERSITY, BRNO) THE NOBLE ILLUSTRIOUS WARRIOR: YOUTHS IN KOMNENIAN LITERATURE Due to social changes in the eleventh-century Byzantine Empire, extended family bonds strengthened, the importance of the military aristocracy increased, and the Komnenodoukai clan acquired an unassailable position. Contemporary literature also reflected these changes by presenting the motif of a well-trained noble juvenile owning luxurious hunting and mili- tary equipment. Its two main elements are noble birth and a manly appearance. The presentation of noble birth varies in Komnenian literature and three different aspects of this theme are identifiable. Historians strive to create imaginary blood lines between young men and mythological, biblical or historical rulers; orators extol youth’s affiliation with the Komnenodoukai clan in an increased number of speeches and poems related to family events; and, finally, the same orators cease praising a humble origin in advisory literature. These aspects thereby indicate the increased importance of family bonds. The depiction of a young man’s manly appearance occurs in the same context in all genres with closely related elements. A good physical condition results from a commitment to military training and hunting – the latter considered a complementary relaxing activity to engaging in warfare –, which, in turn, assist in perfecting a youth’s character by making him a brave and determined commander. Luxurious equipment complements this image, which embodies the enhanced self-esteem of the military aristocracy and the desire to present a respectable family status. The contribution aims to outline the increased interest of writers in the appearance and physical activities of their heroes, to discuss each element of this motif in detail, and, finally, to associate this motif with changes in the organization of Byzantine nobility.
    [Show full text]
  • Experimenting with Prose and Verse in Twelfth-Century Byzantium a Preliminary Study
    Experimenting with Prose and Verse in Twelfth-Century Byzantium A Preliminary Study Nikos Zagklas Δέχου, πάτερ, τὸ πένθος ἔγγραφον, δέχου, paratext that introduces the content of the prose letter ὃ δυστυχῶς ἔτλημεν ἐξ ἐναντίων. to the recipient, asking him to pray for the writer’s des- εὔχου, πάτερ, μοὶ τῷ καθειργμένῳ τέκνῳ, perate situation after the Arab invasion. What is more important for our purposes, however, is that here prose ὅπως θεός μοι χεῖρα δῷ προμηθίας. and verse are closely interlinked. The Byzantines may not have set clear-cut boundaries between the composi- Αccept, father, accept in written form my tion of prose and verse,3 but this does not mean that mourning, which, in misfortune, we have they could not distinguish between the two forms.4 A endured because of our enemies. Pray, father, learned Byzantine could hear the rhythmical difference for me, your imprisoned child, that God may and see the visual one; in the same vein, the recipient give me his solicitous hand. of Theodosios the Grammarian’s letter and iambic epi- gram would probably notice and appreciate the acoustic his iambic tetrastich is preserved on fol. 150r of and visual diversity generated by the juxtaposition of Tthe eleventh-century codex Parisinus graecus prose and verse. 3032, immediately before a partly surviving prose let- ter to Leo the Archdeacon that describes the capture of Syracuse by the Arabs in the year 880.1 Both were 2.1:70–79; R. Anastasi, “L’epistola di Teodosio Monaco,” Archivio written by Theodosios the Grammarian, either dur- Storico Siracusano 5 (1978–79): 169–82.
    [Show full text]
  • Title: of False Philosophers and Inept Teachers: Theodore Prodromos’ Satirical Writings (With a Translation of the Poem Against the Old Man with a Long Beard)
    Title: Of false philosophers and inept teachers: Theodore Prodromos’ satirical writings (with a translation of the poem Against the old man with a long beard) Author: Przemysław Marciniak Citation style: Marciniak Przemysław. (2020). Of false philosophers and inept teachers: Theodore Prodromos’ satirical writings (with a translation of the poem Against the old man with a long beard). “Byzantina Symmeikta” (T. 30 (2020), s. 131-148), doi 10.12681/byzsym.20889 Βυζαντινά Σύμμεικτα Τομ. 30 Of false philosophers and inept teachers: Theodore Prodromos’ satirical writings (with a translation of the poem Against the old man with a long beard). MARCINIAK Przemyslaw https://doi.org/10.12681/byzsym.20889 Copyright © 2020 Przemyslaw T. Marciniak To cite this article: MARCINIAK, P. (2020). Of false philosophers and inept teachers: Theodore Prodromos’ satirical writings (with a translation of the poem Against the old man with a long beard).. Βυζαντινά Σύμμεικτα, 30, 131-148. doi:https://doi.org/10.12681/byzsym.20889 http://epublishing.ekt.gr | e-Publisher: EKT | Downloaded at 13/05/2020 12:44:51 | INSTITUTE OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH ΙΝΣΤΙΤΟΥΤΟ ΙΣΤΟΡΙΚΩΝ ΕΡΕΥΝΩΝ SECTION OF BYZANTINE RESEARCH ΤΟΜΕΑΣ ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΝΩΝ ΕΡΕΥΝΩΝ NATIONAL HELLENIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION ΕΘΝΙΚΟ IΔΡΥΜΑ ΕΡΕΥΝΩΝ Τομοσ 30 VOLUME EFI RAGIA THE GEOGRAPHY OF THE PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION Przemysław marciniak OF THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE (CA 600-1200): I.1. THE APOTHEKAI OF ASIA MINOR (7TH-8TH C.) OF FALSE PHILOSOPHERS AND INEPT TEACHERS: Theodore Prodromos’ saTirical wriTings ΑΘΗΝΑ • 20092020 • ATHENS http://epublishing.ekt.gr | e-Publisher: EKT | Downloaded at 13/05/2020 12:44:51 | Przemysław marciniak Of false PhilOsOPhers and inePt teachers: theOdOre PrOdrOmOs’ satirical writings (with a translation of the poem Against the old man with a long beard)* Theodore Prodromos, an ingenious 12th century writer, has been referred to as “the Byzantine Lucian”1.
    [Show full text]
  • Manuel I Komnenos and Michael Glycas: a Twelfth-Century Defence and Refutation of Astrology ______
    Manuel I Komnenos and Michael Glycas: A Twelfth-Century Defence and Refutation of Astrology _________________________________________________________________ Demetra George Abstract Manuel Komnenos I, Emperor of the Byzantine Empire composed a defence of astrology to the Church Fathers, in which he asserted that this discipline was compatible with Christian doctrine. Theologian Michael Glykas, possibly imprisoned and blinded by Manuel for political sedition, refuted this defence, claiming that the astrological art was heretical. This is the first time that this exchange of treatises has been translated into any language since their composition in the twelfth-century. The introduction sets these works into their historical framework, at a time when the belief in the validity of astrology was held by some of the best scholars of this century as a result of the flood of Arabic astrological translations coming into the Latin West and Greek East. The writings of these two antagonists precipitated anew in mediaeval thought the problem of the correct relationship between man, the celestial bodies and God who dwelled in Heaven. Part 1. History and Background Introduction Manuel I Komnenos, emperor of the Eastern Byzantine Empire from 1143-1180 wrote a public defence of astrology to the Church Fathers, integrating his belief in the astrological science with Christian doctrines.1 Michael Glykas, a monastic theologian, responded to this letter with a famous refutation.2 While Manuel's astrological defence, aside from legislation and dialogues in which he is featured, is his only surviving document,3 this is the first time that it, as well as Glykas' refutation, have been translated from the Greek since their composition in the twelfth century.
    [Show full text]